Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object design'.

Page 252/1616 | < Previous Page | 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259  | Next Page >

  • Why people define class, trait, object inside another object in Scala?

    - by Zwcat
    Ok, I'll explain why I ask this question. I begin to read Lift 2.2 source code these days. In Lift, I found that, define inner class and inner trait are very heavily used. object Menu has 2 inner traits and 4 inner classes. object Loc has 18 inner classes, 5 inner traits, 7 inner objects. There're tons of codes write like this. I wanna to know why the author write it like this. Is it because it's the author's personal taste or a powerful use of language feature?

    Read the article

  • Calling function from an object with event listener

    - by Mirat Can Bayrak
    i have a view model something like this: CANVAS = getElementById... RemixView = function(attrs) { this.model = attrs.model; this.dragging = false; this.init(); }; RemixView.prototype = { init: function() { CANVAS.addEventListener("click", this.handleClick); }, handleClick: function(ev) { var obj = this.getHoveredObject(ev); }, getHoveredObject: function(ev) {} ... ... } rv = new RemixView() the problem is my when clickHandler event fired, this object is being equal to CANVAS object, not RemixView. So i get error that says: this.getHoveredObject is not a function What is correct approach at that stuation?

    Read the article

  • Call Generic method using runtime type and cast return object

    - by markpirvine
    I'm using reflection to call a generic method with a type determined at runtime. My code is as follows: Type tType = Type.GetType(pLoadOut.Type); MethodInfo method = typeof(ApiSerialiseHelper).GetMethod("Deserialise", new Type[] { typeof(string) }); MethodInfo generic = method.MakeGenericMethod(tType); generic.Invoke(obj, new object[] { pLoadOut.Data }); This works ok. However the generic.Invoke method returns an object, but what I would like is the type determined at runtime. Is this possible with this approach, or is there a better option? Mark

    Read the article

  • Proper Form Application Design

    - by Soo
    I'm creating a WinForm application in C# and one of its functions is displaying text in text boxes. I'm coding the logic for querying a database in a separate class and am unable to access the text box element in the class I'm creating (I'm getting a "name" does not exist in the current context error). Do I put all of my form logic into my Form1.cs file?

    Read the article

  • Team activity/game for illustrating design in a SCRUM environment

    - by njreed.myopenid.com
    I'm looking for a team building / training activity for some of my scrum teams. I want something that really illustrates the flexibility that the team has when implementing stories to define the scope and complexity of the feature themselves. Most of the teams have long-term waterfall experience and are used to having a well-defined specification. I'm looking for something that illustrates the need for the team to vary the scope of what they are building themselves, dependent on the time and resources available. I couldn't find anything at tastycupcakes.com and Google wasn't much help. Maybe someone has prepared something themselves they would care to share?

    Read the article

  • try finally block around every Object.Create?

    - by max
    Hi, I have a general question about best practice in OO Delphi. Currently, I but a try finally block around everywhere, where I create an object, to free that object after usage (to avoid memory leaks). E.g.: aObject := TObject.Create; try aOBject.AProcedure(); ... finally aObject.Free; end; instead of: aObject := TObject.Create; aObject.AProcedure(); .. aObject.Free; To you think, it is good practice, or too much overhead? And what about the performance?

    Read the article

  • Object changed while deserialization

    - by neoms21
    I'm serializing an object and storing the serialized value in db and getting the deserialization to work fine as well after getting values from db. But problem occurs if the existing object is modified and a new property is added in the class. Then while deserializing it looks for that property in serialized text and upon not finding it there, I get the following error System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationException: Member 'temp' was not found. Is there any way I can know if new property was not there while serialization and can skip that? I'm using custom serialization.

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Retrieve Object Property Names

    - by Jason
    I'm trying to write a function that needs to know the property names of an object being passed in, like so: var data = { "key1":"value1", "key2":"value2", etc} ^ i want the string value "key1" How do I retrieve the string "key1" from data? I know I can set a property dynamically like data[prop]=value but i want to know what prop is from an object passed in. If that doesn't make sense I suppose I could try to explain more. Thanks! I eventually want to do something like: for (var i = 0; i<data.length; i++) { var name = data[i].getPropertyName() <--- not a real function // do stuff }

    Read the article

  • Roll back changes to object if invalid

    - by hhravn
    How do i roll back changes to an attached object in nhibernate? We have a validation before update/save (example simplified).. var setting = Get("key") setting.Value = "helo" //for whatever reason, this particular //setting cannot have its value saved to the database ... Verify(setting); //throws base.Update(setting); but since the object is attached, any changes already happened in the session, even if the validation throws, and never reaches Update. What is the proper way to handle this?

    Read the article

  • Javascript Image object without instantiating

    - by user276027
    This question is about javascript performance. Consider 3 examples for illustration: function loadImgA() { new Image().src="http://example.com/image.gif" } function loadImgA1() { Image().src="http://example.com/image.gif" } function loadImgB() { var testImg = new Image(); testImg.src="http://example.com/image.gif" } Now the point is I don't really need to manipulate the the image object after it was created, hence loadImgA(). The question is, what happens if nothing is assigned to the return value of the new Image() constructor - in that case I can actually skip the 'new' keyword as in loadImgA1()? Does the object then live outside the function or somehow affects memory usage? Other implications, differences? I reckon not, as no real instance was actually created? To put this into perspective, I only need to get the http request for image through. No preloading or other advanced image manipulation. What would be the preferred method from the above?

    Read the article

  • How to assign one object to another in Linq c# without making new

    - by LLL
    I m facing issue in assiging one object to another in linq sql. In this example Func<result, result> make = q => new result { Id = q.Id, lName = q.lName, GroupId = q.GroupId, Age = (from tags in q.age where tags.Del == null && tags.lId == q.Id select age).ToEntitySet(), }; p = (from q in dc.results where q.Id == Id.Value select make(q)).First(); i am making new and assigning the object, but i dont want to do this, it will cause propblem in insertion. so i want to assign without making new, how is it possible?

    Read the article

  • Which is the good way to update object in EF6

    - by TrieuH
    I have searched and find 2 way to update object in EF var attachedEntity = _context.EntityClasses.Local.First(t => t.Id == entity.Id); //We have it in the context, need to update. if (attachedEntity != null) { var attachedEntry = _context.Entry(attachedEntity); attachedEntry.CurrentValues.SetValues(entity); } else { ////If it's not found locally, we can attach it by setting state to modified. ////This would result in a SQL update statement for all fields ////when SaveChanges is called. var entry = _context.Entry(entity); entry.State = EntityState.Modified; } _context.SaveChanges(); And other way is seem more easy var entity = _context.EntityClasses.FirstOrDefault(t => t.Id == entity.Id); _context.Entry(entity ).EntityState.Modified _context.SaveChanges(); What is best way to update object? NOTE: the performence is importance with me

    Read the article

  • Java Basics: create class object

    - by user1767853
    In C++: class Rectangle { int x, y; public: void set_values (int,int); int area () {return (x*y);} }; int main () { Rectangle rect; rect.set_values (3,4); } In Java: class Rectangle { int x, y; void set_values (int x,int y); int area () {return (x*y);} } public static void main(String[] args) { Rectangle rect=new Rectangle(3,4); } In C++ compiler will create rect object & reserve memory 4 bytes. I want to know How Java is creating object?

    Read the article

  • how to declare object variable name in loop

    - by user3717895
    public class Node{ Node p,l,r; int height; String s; { /** class body**/ } } String[] S=new String[5000]; int i=0; while (i<5000){ Node x=new Node(); x=S[i]; } I want to make 5000 Node object. above code assign same variable name x every time but i want different variable name . then how to declare 5000 class variable name without declaring it manually. is there something by which i can create 5000 Node class object with ease.

    Read the article

  • Banshee crashes consistently - is there a fix?

    - by user36334
    Since updating to ubuntu 11.10 I've had trouble with banshee. In particular when I run it I find that it crashes within an hour without fail. I get the following Unhandled Exception: System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. ---> System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at Mono.Zeroconf.Providers.AvahiDBus.BrowseService.DisposeResolver () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Mono.Zeroconf.Providers.AvahiDBus.BrowseService.Dispose () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Mono.Zeroconf.Providers.AvahiDBus.ServiceBrowser.OnItemRemove (Int32 interface, Protocol protocol, System.String name, System.String type, System.String domain, LookupResultFlags flags) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.MonoMethod:InternalInvoke (System.Reflection.MonoMethod,object,object[],System.Exception&) at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.Reflection.MethodBase.Invoke (System.Object obj, System.Object[] parameters) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.Delegate.DynamicInvokeImpl (System.Object[] args) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.MulticastDelegate.DynamicInvokeImpl (System.Object[] args) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.Delegate.DynamicInvoke (System.Object[] args) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at NDesk.DBus.Connection.HandleSignal (NDesk.DBus.Message msg) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at NDesk.DBus.Connection.DispatchSignals () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at NDesk.DBus.Connection.Iterate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Mono.Zeroconf.Providers.AvahiDBus.DBusManager.IterateThread (System.Object o) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Does anyone else also have this problem?

    Read the article

  • Creating a Custom EventAggregator Class

    - by Phil
    One thing I noticed about Microsoft's Composite Application Guidance is that the EventAggregator class is a little inflexible. I say that because getting a particular event from the EventAggregator involves identifying the event by its type like so: _eventAggregator.GetEvent<MyEventType>(); But what if you want different events of the same type? For example, if a developer wants to add a new event to his application of type CompositePresentationEvent<int>, he would have to create a new class that derives from CompositePresentationEvent<int> in a shared library somewhere just to keep it separate from any other events of the same type. In a large application, that's a lot of little two-line classes like the following: public class StuffHappenedEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<int> {} public class OtherStuffHappenedEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<int> {} I don't really like that approach. It almost feels dirty to me, partially because I don't want a million two-line event classes sitting around in my infrastructure dll. What if I designed my own simple event aggregator that identified events by an event ID rather than the event type? For example, I could have an enum such as the following: public enum EventId { StuffHappened, OtherStuffHappened, YetMoreStuffHappened } And my new event aggregator class could use the EventId enum (or a more general object) as a key to identify events in the following way: _eventAggregator.GetEvent<CompositePresentationEvent<int>>(EventId.StuffHappened); _eventAggregator.GetEvent<CompositePresentationEvent<int>>(EventId.OtherStuffHappened); Is this good design for the long run? One thing I noticed is that this reduces type safety. In a large application, is this really as important of a concern as I think it is? Do you think there could be a better alternative design?

    Read the article

  • Explicit behavior with checks vs. implicit behavior

    - by Silviu
    I'm not sure how to construct the question but I'm interested to know what do you guys think of the following situations and which one would you prefer. We're working at a client-server application with winforms. And we have a control that has some fields automatically calculated upon filling another field. So we're having a field currency which when filled by the user would determine an automatic filling of another field, maybe more fields. When the user fills the currency field, a Currency object would be retrieved from a cache based on the string introduced by the user. If entered currency is not found in the cache a null reference is returned by the cache object. Further down when asking the application layer to compute the other fields based on the currency, given a null currency a null specific field would be returned. This way the default, implicit behavior is to clear all fields. Which is the expected behavior. What i would call the explicit implementation would be to verify that the Currency object is null in which case the depending fields are cleared explicitly. I think that the latter version is more clear, less error prone and more testable. But it implies a form of redundancy. The former version is not as clear and it implies a certain behavior from the application layer which is not expressed in the tests. Maybe in the lower layer tests but when the need arises to modify the lower layers, so that given a null currency something else should be returned, i don't think a test that says just that without a motivation is going to be an impediment for introducing a bug in upper layers. What do you guys think?

    Read the article

  • Looking for a lock-free RT-safe single-reader single-writer structure

    - by moala
    Hi, I'm looking for a lock-free design conforming to these requisites: a single writer writes into a structure and a single reader reads from this structure (this structure exists already and is safe for simultaneous read/write) but at some time, the structure needs to be changed by the writer, which then initialises, switches and writes into a new structure (of the same type but with new content) and at the next time the reader reads, it switches to this new structure (if the writer multiply switches to a new lock-free structure, the reader discards these structures, ignoring their data). The structures must be reused, i.e. no heap memory allocation/free is allowed during write/read/switch operation, for RT purposes. I have currently implemented a ringbuffer containing multiple instances of these structures; but this implementation suffers from the fact that when the writer has used all the structures present in the ringbuffer, there is no more place to change from structure... But the rest of the ringbuffer contains some data which don't have to be read by the reader but can't be re-used by the writer. As a consequence, the ringbuffer does not fit this purpose. Any idea (name or pseudo-implementation) of a lock-free design? Thanks for having considered this problem.

    Read the article

  • What should be the responsibility of a presenter here?

    - by Achu
    I have a 3 layer design. (UI / BLL / DAL) UI = ASP.NET MVC In my view I have collection of products for a category. Example: Product 1, Product 2 etc.. A user able to select or remove (by selecting check box) product’s from the view, finally save as a collection when user submit these changes. With this 3 layer design how this product collection will be saved? How the filtering of products (removal and addition) to the category object? Here are my options. (A) It is the responsibility of the controller then the pseudo Code would be Find products that the user selected or removed and compare with existing records. Add or delete that collection to category object. Call SaveCategory(category); // BLL CALL Here the first 2 process steps occurs in the controller. (B) It is the responsibility of BLL then pseudo Code would be Collect products what ever user selected SaveCategory(category, products); // BLL CALL Here it's up to the SaveCategory (BLL) to decide what products should be removed and added to the database. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How can I write good "research code"?

    - by John
    "Research code" is often held up as a paragon of what not to do when writing software. Certainly, the kind of code that often results from trying to solve a research problem can end up being poorly-designed, difficult to debug, etc. But my question is this: does research code have to be this way? Is it possible to write good research code? Is the only approach to consider the first version a poorly-written prototype to be discarded in favour of the better-designed second version? Software engineering has all sorts of best practices about how to design and write good code, but I don't usually find this relevant when you don't have a good idea ahead of time what the final system will look like. The final system is likely to be a result of what did or didn't work along the way, and the only way to determine what does or doesn't work is to write the code first. As you find things that don't work, you change what the final system looks like, moving further away from your original design (assuming you had one). I'd be interested in any personal experience with these issues, as well as any books or other resources anyone can point me to.

    Read the article

  • Moq and accessing called parameters

    - by lozzar
    I've just started to implement unit tests (using xUnit and Moq) on an already established project of mine. The project extensively uses dependency injection via the unity container. I have two services A and B. Service A is the one being tested in this case. Service A calls B and gives it a delegate to an internal function. This 'callback' is used to notify A when a message has been received that it must handle. Hence A calls (where b is an instance of service B): b.RegisterHandler(Guid id, Action<byte[]> messageHandler); In order to test service A, I need to be able to call messageHandler, as this is the only way it currently accepts messages. Can this be done using Moq? ie. Can I mock service B, such that when RegisterHandler is called, the value of messageHandler is passed out to my test? Or do I need to redesign this? Are there any design patterns I should be using in this case? Does anyone know of any good resources on this kind of design?

    Read the article

  • Taking the data mapper approach in Zend Framework

    - by Seeker
    Let's assume the following tables setup for a Zend Framework app. user (id) groups (id) groups_users (id, user_id, group_id, join_date) I took the Data Mapper approach to models which basically gives me: Model_User, Model_UsersMapper, Model_DbTable_Users Model_Group, Model_GroupsMapper, Model_DbTable_Groups Model_GroupUser, Model_GroupsUsersMapper, Model_DbTable_GroupsUsers (for holding the relationships which can be seen as aentities; notice the "join_date" property) I'm defining the _referenceMap in Model_DbTable_GroupsUsers: protected $_referenceMap = array ( 'User' => array ( 'columns' => array('user_id'), 'refTableClass' => 'Model_DbTable_Users', 'refColumns' => array('id') ), 'App' => array ( 'columns' => array('group_id'), 'refTableClass' => 'Model_DbTable_Groups', 'refColumns' => array('id') ) ); I'm having these design problems in mind: 1) The Model_Group only mirrors the fields in the groups table. How can I return a collection of groups a user is a member of and also the date the user joined that group for every group? If I just added the property to the domain object, then I'd have to let the group mapper know about it, wouldn't I? 2) Let's say I need to fetch the groups a user belongs to. Where should I put this logic? Model_UsersMapper or Model_GroupsUsersMapper? I also want to make use of the referencing map (dependent tables) mechanism and probably use findManyToManyRowset or findDependentRowset, something like: $result = $this->getDbTable()->find($userId); $row = $result->current(); $groups = $row->findManyToManyRowset( 'Model_DbTable_Groups', 'Model_DbTable_GroupsUsers' ); This would produce two queries when I could have just written it in a single query. I will place this in the Model_GroupsUsersMapper class. An enhancement would be to add a getGroups method to the Model_User domain object which lazily loads the groups when needed by calling the appropriate method in the data mapper, which begs for the second question. Should I allow the domain object know about the data mapper?

    Read the article

  • Correctly use dependency injection

    - by Rune
    Me and two other colleagues are trying to understand how to best design a program. For example, I have an interface ISoda and multiple classes that implement that interface like Coke, Pepsi, DrPepper, etc.... My colleague is saying that it's best to put these items into a database like a key/value pair. For example: Key | Name -------------------------------------- Coke | my.namespace.Coke, MyAssembly Pepsi | my.namespace.Pepsi, MyAssembly DrPepper | my.namespace.DrPepper, MyAssembly ... then have XML configuration files that map the input to the correct key, query the database for the key, then create the object. I don't have any specific reasons, but I just feel that this is a bad design, but I don't know what to say or how to correctly argue against it. My second colleague is suggesting that we micro-manage each of these classes. So basically the input would go through a switch statement, something similiar to this: ISoda soda; switch (input) { case "Coke": soda = new Coke(); break; case "Pepsi": soda = new Pepsi(); break; case "DrPepper": soda = new DrPepper(); break; } This seems a little better to me, but I still think there is a better way to do it. I've been reading up on IoC containers the last few days and it seems like a good solution. However, I'm still very new to dependency injection and IoC containers, so I don't know how to correctly argue for it. Or maybe I'm the wrong one and there's a better way to do it? If so, can someone suggest a better method? What kind of arguments can I bring to the table to convince my colleagues to try another method? What are the pros/cons? Why should we do it one way? Unfortunately, my colleagues are very resistant to change so I'm trying to figure out how I can convince them.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259  | Next Page >